Best fighter of WW2

This web sites thinks The Rolls Royce Merlin is better than the Allison Engine.

http://ww.aviationshoppe.com/Rolls-Royce-Merlin.html

I have a question here.
Is the Rolls Royce Merlin Engine the same as the Allison Engines,or are they made from the same company?I am confussed.

 

The Germans would have spent the better part of another year working out all the bugs.


Speculation with no substantiation. Pilots that flew it were entirely positive in their estimation of it.

 

Right Hiedi, just not as reliable.

 

Loos shoots down 2 Soviet fighters in the 152. I believe that's considered operational as opposed to the prototype testing mentioned above.

Stab/JG 301 was equipped with the Ta 152, the most modern propeller-fighter, in order to protect the bases of the jet-fighters from Spring 1945. It was natural to include Loos in this unit. On April 24, 1945, Loos encountered a formation of Soviet fighters over Berlin and managed to down two of them.

Ta 152H

 

Reading T.A.'s post he didnt state that they didn't see service just that they did not see service during the war.


" The Bearcat didn't see operational service. VF 19 began to equip with the F8F on 21 May 1945 and didn't reach operational status until after the war ended.
The Seafury, likewise saw no operational service before the war ended. The first prototype Seafury flew on 21 Feb 1945. The second prototype (fully navalized s/n SR666) flew on October 12 1945 well after the war ended."

 

You sir are an ignorant little troll. I think anyone who can read agrees with me here.

Gardner said:

Nice try.

Then, here comes the utterly inane. You said "T.A. 152 flew in combat during the war. Wrongo for you." What Gardner had said, in fact, was:

What part of OPERATIONAL TESTING don't you understand?

You are either victim to a severe reading disorder or hyper attention--if that be the case my apology goes to you, or you are just another know-nothing flamer going about misconstruing the word of others and go busily build sand castles and straw man.

 

Mr. Falkenberg, once more you have beat me to the draw. Glad that we are shooting the same target.

 

Well I say you can look at P-38's, P-47's, P-51's, F6F's, F4U's, Spitfires, Tempest, "109's, '190's , Ki-84's, George's , Lavochin's and Yak's (well looks like 13 types in all!!!!) and draw either out of hat to get the right conclusion.

 

Immaterial point Falk. We all know the Bearcat didn't see action during WW 2. I never stated it did. Thanks for immature name calling Triple. Pot calling the kettle black.

As for operational testing, you like T.A. are plain & simply wrong. Flying cover for 262;s is NOT operational testing, it actual combat ops. Comprehension of this should be uncomplicated & simple.

 

Here's more, notice it says, soundness of the design.

Erprobungskommando Ta 152, commanded by Hptm. Bruno Stolle and based at Rechlin. This unit was responsible for service testing the new fighter although the pressure of events and the soundness of the design led Stolle to recommend a rapid introduction into service.



The first combat sortie flown by a mixed force of Ta 152 Hs and Fw 190 As of III./JG 301 had taken place on 2 March 1945. That day a powerful 8th Air Force formation of 1,232 bombers screened by 723 fighters was dispatched to Böhlen, Magdeburg and Ruhland. Airborne from Sachau behind Verbandsführer (formation leader) Oberleutnant Stahl, some twelve Ta 152s climbed away southwards and prepared to do battle with the Mustang escort screening the bombers heading for the Bohlen chemical plant near Leuna.


Ok, so that settles the point.


As to XP 72, it remains an interesting what if. Had different prop setups. P-47 M was also fast, but like all 47 derivitaves, too heavy & could not maneuver with a T.A 152.



Several propeller systems were mounted on the design including a 6-bladed variety produced by Aeroproduct as a contra-rotating prop. Most often photographed with the 4-bladed propeller system.

Republic XP-72 Super Thunderbolt (Wasp Major) - History, Specifications and Pictures - World Military Aircraft

 

Operational testing is testing up to and including combat evaluations! What do you think operational means?!

 

OK, I dunno why I'm bothering with this. I'll feed it to you slowly, see if you can catch on.



Phase 1 Nov 44... Notice the term "service testing" sentence 4.

The first Ta 152 series aircraft to leave the production line at Cottbus were a batch of 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s which were delivered in October and November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152, commanded by Hptm. Bruno Stolle and based at Rechlin. This unit was responsible for service testing the new fighter although the pressure of events and the soundness of the design led Stolle to recommend a rapid introduction into service.


Phase 2...

The first combat sortie flown by a mixed force of Ta 152 Hs and Fw 190 As of III./JG 301 had taken place on 2 March 1945.


Got it?

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12510-flying-152-a.html




Now as to inference to 152 being experimental A/C & all that, the Jumo motor was already tried & tested in the Dora. Armament also not brand new. MW 50 & GM 1 boost systems also tried & tested. 3 bladed paddle propellor also tried & tested on prior longnoses. Landing gear, canopy, airframe by & large also not exactly brand new entities.

The XP 72 by contrast featured a brand new powerplant,(3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp ), exotic not tried & tested extensively propellors, the 37 mm cannon was also new. The only one to fly with contrarotating props crashed. They are entirely different animals.



The second XP-72 (43-36599) flew for the first time on June 26, 1944. It was fitted with the Aeroproducts contrarotating propellers, which had finally been delivered. Unfortunately, the second XP-72 was written off in a takeoff crash early in its test flight program.


Republic XP-72

 

The Mosquito was never manoueverable enough to really be considered as a pure day fighter ( as was the case with most twin-engined aircraft eg Westland Whirlwind, Me 262 ). By which I mean 'dogfight-type' fighter rather than 'interceptor'.....

The RAF considered it mainly as a fighter-bomber ( the exception being the night-fighter variants, but of course night-fighting is very different to daylight fighter combat ).

 

I would't wright off the Mosquito that fast.It was proven the the Mosquito could have handle any task,but the English flight command was so parinod that She Mosquito might fail,so kept the Mosqutio second to the heavy bombers.
Test Pilots test and flew the Mosquito and she passed in every way, as a day and night bomber and fighter.

De Havilland Mosquito

 

Chormeboomerang. Your information is fascinating and all, yet where are the sources and websites to back up your statements?

I had a look at your 'Flying the TA 152' and again in that thread you list no real informative references except to quote you when asked for a reference you reply "No I got it from a friend". All of it sounds like nothing but your opinions which against all facts from the era counts for nothing.

The other links you have been providing are nothing at all there is one there where you quote:

I had a look at this site and there is nothing there to back you up. Although it talks about this pilot called Walter Loos, it never mentions him flying and actually using this plane in question in combat except with this

However no where in this site does it actually say he was flying the TA 152 during his service. This site you have referenced is in fact a modelers site and not historical.

So in short, some real references would be good.
And please give up the rude comments to the rest of the people here no of whom having been rude to you, they offered there opinions about you and you should show the same respect to them as they have for you.

 

It was the best Allied night fighter of WW2. The best night fighter of WW2 is a close race between the Mosquito NF and the JU 88G

 

By this system the corsair probably comes out with the highest rating. Don't know enough to wax poetic on engine types.

 

Tomcat, fairly new - well no quite new info revieling W. Loos: does indicate he flew the Ta 152H but whether he actually scored kills flying the crate is another matter as his Flugbuch is pretty messed up with some interesting entries. In fact some of he flights of Stab JG 301 and the Tank do not cross check nor make sense .......... and lets get this straight once and for all, but it will always stay a silly myth. the Tank was not suppose to be used to protect ANY Me 262 or German jets/bases ..........period ! The Tank was designed for combat at high altitude to face the US P-51.

As to Allied NF I would give it to the Mossie XXX, superior to the Ju 88G-6 in any of it's radar'd links

 

On the Ta 152. The rather definitive Monogram Close-up 24: Ta 152 by Jeffery Ethell gives the following:

A total of just 67 Ta 152 of all models were produced, the last 10 in February 1945. 36 of those aircraft bore a versuchs number or the designation "experimental." That leaves just 31 "production" aircraft.

The following units operated the aircraft:

Erprobungsstelle Rechlin An operational testing and evaluation unit. Their task was to test the Ta 152 for its suitablity for operational use. Since the Ta 152 had been ordered into production after just 30 hours and 52 minutes of prototype flying time the Rechlin staff found the aircraft riddled with flaws and problems. They recommended not producing it until alot more testing had been done and the multitude of problems worked out.

The problems listed included (but are not limited to):
Instability around the yaw axis.
Problems with the pitch stability.
These problems make gunnery impossible.
Roll is poor and doesn't meet minimum stability standards.
The hydraulic system for raising the landing gear is weak.
The emergancy air system for raising / lowering the landing gear blows by the valves in the hydraulic system causing landing gear collapse.
Water thrown up by the wheels warps the flaps which then will not work and have to be replaced.
Poor workmanship was evident throughout the structure. Rivets frequently came loose, panels detached from the plane.
The ailerons could not be properly adjusted. This results in aileron flutter and poor roll rate.
There were continual problems getting the landing gear to fully retract; particularly the right one.
The pilot's seat was not properly designed for use with the special high altitude parachutes pilots wore.

The only operational group to get the Ta 152 was JG 301. On April 12 1945 they listed the following:

Stab 7 on hand 3 operational
III Gruppe: 6 on hand, 3 operational.

These H models flew just a handful of sorties before the war ended. Saying that the Ta 152 was operational was like saying say, the Tiger Maus was operational because one was driven into combat from some testing ground.

With the Ta 152, development had not even finished. The multitude of problems with the plane were never ironed out. Most production models never got produced at all and the primary one that did (the H) saw combat just a handful of times in the last days of the war like so many other prototypes, one-offs and, anything else Germany had that could fight.
In less catastrophic conditions the Ta 152 would not have been declaired operational at all.

 

T.A. the old closeup is getting re-vitalized by EE editions to a new hardbound volume with new info's so the soft back Monogram is bogus in several spots that being how many numbers of the Tank on hand, I am going to cover this aircraft anyway in my forthcoming volume(s). this will be quite a technical work from what I have seen first hand. The profiles are lovely by the way.......

case in point is the declaration of April 45 with III. gruppe, they had 0 Ta's on hand but had A-8, A-9's and D-9's in their lineup also the Stab numbers. Originally III. gruppe had 35 in numbers for the 4 staffeln